All Topics / Legal & Accounting / Renting from Trust
Hi all,
I just came across some info on another post with the suggestion to buy a house in the name of a trust, then rent the house from the trust.
Would the taxman chase you down if you setup this scenario instead of buying your PPOR in your own name. Especially if you and your wife are the beneficiaries of the trust. Basically to me this seems like a great suggestion as you can use the interest as a deduction for the trust and live in your own house without having to worry about the landlord as you are the landlord, but would the taxman think you are avoiding or hiding something?
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks
Luke…
It is a good idea, but
– you must pay market rent to the trust. So after a few years, your trust may have to pay tax on the pofit it is making (which otherwise you would not have)
– you will lose the CGT exemption
– you cannot do this under a unit trust. If done using a discretionary trust, the trust cannot distribute losses so cannot negative gear your icome – only roll over losses or offset against other trust income.On the positve side:
– good idea if you are intending to move elsewhere in the future (ie this is not your final PPOR)
– can possible claim depreciation on furniture etcTerryw
Discover Home Loans
North Sydney
[email protected]Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email MeLawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
Originally posted by Terryw:you cannot do this under a unit trust.
What’s the problem with that? Won’t the tax office let you deduct the interest?
GP
Another positive is that if you have a home business, you can claim part of the ‘rent’ as expenses, without having to worry about losing the CGT exemption if it was your PPOR.
GP, the ATO won’t let you ‘negatively gear’ the house you live in thru owning it via a unit trust..
Cheers
MelI find this really interesting and really confusing at the same time. Is a solicitor the person to ask about setting up this sort of thing?
Cheers
SonjaOriginally posted by melbear:the ATO won’t let you ‘negatively gear’ the house you live in thru owning it via a unit trust
Thanks, Mel. I assume that also means via an HDT?
GP
For more info on the ATO’s position regarding renting from a unit trust, have a look at this tax ruling:
TR 2002/18
Income tax: home loan unit trust arrangement
http://law.ato.gov.au/pdf/tr02-018.pdfTerryw
Discover Home Loans
North Sydney
[email protected]Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email MeLawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
Wrap Attack
We use trusts for assett protection. A company as the trustee provides an additional layer of security.
Cheers
Leigh K[biggrin]Wrap Attack
I didn’t see a company mentioned in the initial post.
Are you sure that stamp duty can be avoided by just transferring the shares in the company? My understanding is, if the company holds property, then stamp duty must be paid on the value of the property.
Terryw
Discover Home Loans
North Sydney
[email protected]Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email MeLawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
WrapAttack,
A few issues:-
1. Although the company tax rate is 30% and any capital gains are assessed at that rate companies are also not entitled to the 50% CGT discount. Trusts are entitled to the 50% CGT discount. This could have a significant tax impact. For example if you had a capital gain (after allowing for incidental costs,etc) of $100K and you held the property for more than twelve months the following CGT would apply:
Company $100K x 30% = $30,000 CGT
Trust $100K x 0.50 = $50K to be distributed to the benefeciaries. Let’s assume that it is distributed to a sole beneficary on the top tax rate of 47% then the tax payable will only be $23,500.Therefore under a company structure it results in a disadvantage of $ 6,500.
I do agree that if you plan on purchasing and selling the property within 12 months (as you mention in your email) then a company structure will provide better tax advantages. However once the asset is held for more than 12 mths then this structure is not advantageous from a tax perspective.
2. The rate of duty payable will usally be the general rate of duty. Considering that the company owns land then it will be under the land use sentitlement which means an entitlement to occupy land within NSW conferred through an ownership of shares in a company or an ownership of units in a unit trust scheme, or a combination of a shareholding or ownership of units together with a lease or licence. The dutiable value will therefore be the value of the property. This is provided that the shareholders have a right to occupy the property.
If the company memorandum does not entitle the shareholders to occupy the property then it will be a straight share transfer and the duty will be at the lower share duty rates. Note however that the office of state revenue will revalue the shares. So if your company has two shares worth $2 and it holds property worth $300K then it will deem the shares to be worth $300K i.e. each share will be worth $150K and duty calculated on this amount.
3. Everyone should also be aware of the recent changes to the Bankruptcy Laws. Things have changed dramatically and the protection that trusts used to provide is being dramatically reduced.
WrapAttack,
I have expanded my response. I am not quite sure what you mean when you say you paid it ? Are you saying that you paid the stamp duty when you transferred the share ?
Wrap attack
The other shareholders would only have to pay stamp duty if they transferred their shares.
Regarding changing bankruptcy laws, they are looking at getting back gifts made if a benefit was obtained by giving the gift. One lawyer has suggested poeple should not sleep with their spouses as the wedding ring may have to be given back if the other half goes bankrupt.
Terryw
Discover Home Loans
North Sydney
[email protected]Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email MeLawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
Terry,
The changes to the Bankruptcy Laws are frightening. Did you read Brett Davies Lawyers recent newsletter ?
This is for those that are interested.
There is a very naughty business called Casualife Furniture run by the Guss family. It builds up lots of ATO debt. They then voluntarily wind up their insolvent company. Not to worry. They just start another one – and do it all over again. Casualife touts itself as a “family company for almost 20 years”.
True to form, the latest Guss family business, Casualife, was clocking up lots of unpaid taxes. They were having a good time.
What does the ATO do about that?
Rather than sit on the sidelines the ATO decided to get in first and wind up the company. But the company was solvent. It was making lots of profit – as one would expect when you don’t bother to pay your tax. How could the ATO wind it up?
Obviously, the ATO couldn’t apply for winding up on the grounds of insolvency. However, when shareholders have an argie-bargie they often use the Corporations Law to wind up the company if it is “just and equitable”.
I have never seen it used by a non-shareholder. It was ingenious. Brett Davies Lawyers often headhunts the cream from the ATO, so I am now hunting down the bright spark who formulated this strategy.
Anyway, the ATO said that it is “just and equitable” to wind up the solvent Casualife because of “commercial morality” and in the “public interest”.
The Guss family were flabbergasted. Never had they known the ATO to be so rude. In disgust they wrote a big cheque to the ATO. They then innocently told the court that the ATO was no longer a creditor.
Last month the court still ordered that Casualife – a profitable company – be wound up. Thus history was made. The judge said:
“The history discloses a disdain for the obligation to pay tax and commercial morality in the conduct of a business. The Deputy Commissioner’s lack of confidence in the defendants’ likely observance of their taxation obligations is well justified in the circumstances. For that reason and also because it would be fair to do so, it is appropriate to order winding up. If the defendant companies were not wound up they would continue operating in the public domain under the same Guss control who would, I find, continue to engage by these entities in the same type of impugned conduct. I am also of the view that it is in the public interest and conducive to commercial morality that the companies be wound up, both to prevent the perpetration of further commercial immorality and for the benefit of having the companies under the control of a liquidator.”
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.